The Preeclampsia Foundation does not necessarily endorse any research or news found in this forum, we just want to share what is out there. Please use your own discretion to evaluate any information you find here.

Thank you Eleni. I do remember it being posed as a sort of "what if". It just made me wonder whether or not we do have any evidence, either of LDA being safe for our babes over the long term, or of adverse effects down the line. And you just answered my question perfectly.

As the author of the "patient perspectives" study, let me clarify that the values statements that were in there were not billed as statements of fact, but as viewpoints that survey takers were asked to respond to with their opinions (perspectives). That said, one issue with LDA is that there is no research (good or bad) that gives us any indication at all about the long term impact on our babies.

Thanks Caryn. I have read through that thread. Still clear as mud to me! Do you happen to know anything about whether there is some possible long term risk to the baby when mom takes LDA? I thought I remembered something alluding to that on the pregnancy survey I filled out for the Preeclampsia Foundation a few months back, but not sure. I'm not one to eschew medical advice from my doc, but sort of considering getting another opinion. I wonder how often LDA is prescribed to preeclampsia survivors who have no clotting disorders? Eh, who knew planning a pregnancy could be so complicated...

I would do what your MFM says is appropriate for you. IIRC the current WHO guidelines say to use LDA in women with high recurrence risk, because they know it is unlikely to harm, and there's a slight benefit that keeps popping up in the metaanalyses which might just be a mathematical artifact but might be evidence of a benefit to some set of women we can't identify in advance. Here's a discussion amongst our Experts about LDA that you might want to read - there's still a lot of debate about this, even after two huge multi center randomized trials.

Caryn, @carynjrogers, who is not a doctor and who talks about science stuff *way* too much
DS Oscar born by emergent C-section at 34 weeks for fetal indicators, due to severe PE
DD Bridget born by C-section after water broke at 39 weeks after a healthy pregnancy

Wow, I really don't know what to make of the aspirin theory. I had my daughter at 32+4 due to preeclampsia. When we went back and met with my peri for a consult regarding a future pregnancy, he said that his entire practice is on the LDA wagon (my words, not his), and that they would put me on it. I just don't like the idea of putting any medicine in my body while pregnant, and if it isn't even proven to increase likelihood of a positive outcome, then yeah - I don't really want to take it. I am no expert though. It's just hard to know who to believe...

Caryn, @carynjrogers, who is not a doctor and who talks about science stuff *way* too much
DS Oscar born by emergent C-section at 34 weeks for fetal indicators, due to severe PE
DD Bridget born by C-section after water broke at 39 weeks after a healthy pregnancy